It's HAPPening!

[squally1313]

While I applaud the general attitude, he's displaying a massive misunderstanding of the most super-basic business finance.

Alright I'll bite. Oversimplifying? Sure. But the players and the businesses both received less revenue than expected (and contractually guaranteed) while maintaining a certain level of fixed expenses. Where is the 'massive misunderstanding'?

[Sammy Sofa]

Also: this all stems from Happ totally taking the phrase "eat the rich" a little too literally.

[Tim]

While I applaud the general attitude, he's displaying a massive misunderstanding of the most super-basic business finance.

Alright I'll bite. Oversimplifying? Sure. But the players and the businesses both received less revenue than expected (and contractually guaranteed) while maintaining a certain level of fixed expenses. Where is the 'massive misunderstanding'?

Happ is comparing players taking a reduced salary (there are no "fixed" expenses there) against a business where there are massive fixed expenses for stadiums, front office personnel, coaches, minor league operations, scouting, etc.

All this said, I'm for the players getting a much bigger percentage of the sport's revenues. Screw the billionaire owners. But it doesn't help to have a union representative showing a basic lack of understanding of the difference in finances for individuals vs businesses.

[squally1313]

While I applaud the general attitude, he's displaying a massive misunderstanding of the most super-basic business finance.

Alright I'll bite. Oversimplifying? Sure. But the players and the businesses both received less revenue than expected (and contractually guaranteed) while maintaining a certain level of fixed expenses. Where is the 'massive misunderstanding'?

Happ is comparing players taking a reduced salary (there are no "fixed" expenses there) against a business where there are massive fixed expenses for stadiums, front office personnel, coaches, minor league operations, scouting, etc.

All this said, I'm for the players getting a much bigger percentage of the sport's revenues. Screw the billionaire owners. But it doesn't help to have a union representative showing a basic lack of understanding of the difference in finances for individuals vs businesses.

But doesn't Happ/the players have fixed expenses too? Obviously a different scale, but you establish a lifestyle based on projected or contractually guaranteed income amounts. Player X only got 37% of the income he was projected to receive in 2020, but his costs stayed relatively the same...mortgages, etc.

[Bertz]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/what-the-br ... s-in-2020/

If you do care what the Owners lost, I think this is a good look based on the Braves. They're the one team with sort of open books, on account of being owned by a public company. Even still, some assumptions and guesswork are required. But here's the money passage:

Some teams might have lost more than the Braves and some teams might have lost less, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore prior gains. From the beginning of 2019 to the end of 2020, the Braves are down a total of just $11 million. Since the start of 2018, with the same fourth quarter assumption, they are up by a total of $83 million. If the Braves are like the rest of baseball, then MLB has generated around $2.5 billion in adjusted operating income over the last three years despite the pandemic and a shortened season.

[jersey cubs fan]

While I applaud the general attitude, he's displaying a massive misunderstanding of the most super-basic business finance.

Alright I'll bite. Oversimplifying? Sure. But the players and the businesses both received less revenue than expected (and contractually guaranteed) while maintaining a certain level of fixed expenses. Where is the 'massive misunderstanding'?

Happ is comparing players taking a reduced salary (there are no "fixed" expenses there) against a business where there are massive fixed expenses for stadiums, front office personnel, coaches, minor league operations, scouting, etc.

All this said, I'm for the players getting a much bigger percentage of the sport's revenues. Screw the billionaire owners. But it doesn't help to have a union representative showing a basic lack of understanding of the difference in finances for individuals vs businesses.

What the hell Tim?

The biggest expense the owners have is player salaries and those were slashed. Front offices took hits and payrolls were reduced. There is no significant fixed cost in owning a stadium, none of them paid for theirs anyway.

Owners enjoyed smaller profits. They didn't take a hit. I'm sure they can find a way to make it look like that for tax purposes, but Happ isn't showing a basic lack of understanding in finances here.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah the owners lost revenue but idk how many actually lost money/ran a deficit. They saw a lot of their expenses slashed. I could see how the Ricketts lost money just because of the significant debt burden and service they have for the purchase/renovations/development, but I think they’re somewhat of an outlier. Plus they got the appreciation of the value of the Cubs and they get to depreciate all the real estate, write down a bunch of other stuff, etc.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Also: this all stems from Happ totally taking the phrase "eat the rich" a little too literally.

In the end, that far off stare we all took for Killer Happ was really just Straight up Honest Happ.


horsefeathers the owners.

[Backtobanks]

Yeah the owners lost revenue but idk how many actually lost money/ran a deficit. They saw a lot of their expenses slashed. I could see how the Ricketts lost money just because of the significant debt burden and service they have for the purchase/renovations/development, but I think they’re somewhat of an outlier. Plus they got the appreciation of the value of the Cubs and they get to depreciate all the real estate, write down a bunch of other stuff, etc.

An example of how corporations/companies think. Union Pacific railroad made $300 million one year and $250 million the next year. When they started negotiations with the union, they said that they would have to make cuts because they "lost" $50 million.

[squally1313]

Yeah the owners lost revenue but idk how many actually lost money/ran a deficit. They saw a lot of their expenses slashed. I could see how the Ricketts lost money just because of the significant debt burden and service they have for the purchase/renovations/development, but I think they’re somewhat of an outlier. Plus they got the appreciation of the value of the Cubs and they get to depreciate all the real estate, write down a bunch of other stuff, etc.

An example of how corporations/companies think. Union Pacific railroad made $300 million one year and $250 million the next year. When they started negotiations with the union, they said that they would have to make cuts because they "lost" $50 million.

Starting off in public accounting and we’d have firm wide meetings at the beginning of the fiscal year showing targets of 12% profit growth from the year before. At the end of the year we’d only be at 9%, and that would be used as justification for less than ideal bonus/raise packages.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Yeah the owners lost revenue but idk how many actually lost money/ran a deficit. They saw a lot of their expenses slashed. I could see how the Ricketts lost money just because of the significant debt burden and service they have for the purchase/renovations/development, but I think they’re somewhat of an outlier. Plus they got the appreciation of the value of the Cubs and they get to depreciate all the real estate, write down a bunch of other stuff, etc.

An example of how corporations/companies think. Union Pacific railroad made $300 million one year and $250 million the next year. When they started negotiations with the union, they said that they would have to make cuts because they "lost" $50 million.

Starting off in public accounting and we’d have firm wide meetings at the beginning of the fiscal year showing targets of 12% profit growth from the year before. At the end of the year we’d only be at 9%, and that would be used as justification for less than ideal bonus/raise packages.

I was a minor partner in a firm that one year cut 7 architects/interior designers because of "fear". At the time, we had closed out a fiscal year with over $780k in the bank, enough to pay everyone's salary for a year w/o any new work coming in (40 person firm). But we were slammed busy; with-in 3 months we had to hire 11 people.

But you know, they really were good at getting rid of people. I def learned that from them. And no, I don't work for them anymore

[Cubswin11]

Extend him

[d_money]

Extend him

Too cool

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Nicest [expletive] serial killer ive ever seen

[minnesotacubsfan]

Nicest [expletive] serial killer ive ever seen

they're all nice until they kill you duh